We disagree. I believe in freedom of religion. I believe that the Bible clearly does not endorse same-sex marriage. I believe that for an outsider of a religion to tell a practitioner of that religion exactly how something within that religion should be is wrong.

I also believe in equal rights for everyone under the law.

So, I think the conflict occurs when the law tries to define a social institution that predates government itself.

I do not believe that marriage is part of the government’s job, and in what I’ve read of your writings (at your blog, primarily) I’ve not been convinced otherwise.

If you want to be married, then have a party and call yourself married. If you want to be married in the eyes of the government, then good luck. I don’t understand why you want that. I am not married, despite having lived with the same person in an exclusive relationship for over a decade and having a couple kids and sharing all our property etc. And yeah, it’s inconvenient all the goddamn time for bureaucratic reasons. And yes, I understand that I _could_ be married to my opposite-sex partner, and that’s a big difference from not being able to marry the one I love because of a government regulation.

But that does not invalidate my viewpoint. I did not say that same-sex couples should not have equal rights in the public arena. I believe very strongly that they should. It is how this ought to be achieved where we disagree.

I am sorry if you feel I am some dilettanting heterosexual. I came to this perspective slowly – I was previously a supporter of gay marriage. Through conversation with people of various orientations, I changed my mind. In particular, I realized I had no standing to tell a priest or a rabbi what marriage “should be” in their religion.

Does that mean I like the status quo? No! I think it’s wrong. And I was clear about my remedy – in fact, I’m really not sure what offends you about it? It’s in the defense of your (and anyone else’s) right to define marriage for themselves that makes me want to separate marriage from the law.

Most Judeo-Christian marriage _is_ bigoted. It’s defined in a bigoted manner. And it is objectionable to incorporate that in to the laws of our country. But redefining the religious meanings of this millenia-old institution? Why? If it is for equal rights, then confer the “marriage” implications on to civil unions, and make sure everyone has equal access to those.

What is your objection to my viewpoint? Do you think “marriage” _should_ be part of the government’s purview?

Now perhaps I should be clear: if the _only_ options are the current status quo, or government-sanctioned same-sex marriage, than I prefer the latter, because I feel equal protection trumps separation of church and state. But that’s a sorry compromise.

I do not wish to make an enemy of you, and I’m not trying to score points with the commentariat. If you reply with another pithy ad hominem, I won’t comment on the subject again.

Clearly Gay Marriage is to blame.

“The more important question is, why is the government in the marriage business anyway? “

Because that’s part of its job, Ice. Always has been. Scroll back and read what I’ve posted.

Slowly.

Feel free to move your lips while doing so.

The more important question is, why is the government in the marriage business anyway? That’s the fight. Make a civil union the binding “inheritance”/”hospital rights”/”can talk to the phone company for you”/”files taxes together” partnership, and leave marriage to the religious (of whatever ilk). And if people want to throw a party and call themselves “married” – all power to them!

Then, work to allow any two (or more?) people who want to register themselves as a “civil union” do so, regardless of gender.

But shit, the theocons have a point. Marriage has long been a religious institution, and the Bible (which again, I don’t take seriously) is pretty clear on the point. The argument can’t be “the Bible has it wrong”. The argument is “sure, do marriage however your faith thinks it ought to – just don’t have it affect legal standing”.

There should be a term for this philosophy. Something like, oh, “separation of church and state”.

This is at least your third or fourth effort to get people to think about how to open a dialog with Theocons. Apparently our commenters don’t have a lot of confidence in the humor approach to this problem. I believe in humor myself as a general rule in lots of my work. Even so, I am not sure humor of the kind we get here at FDL will reach theocons. It relies on a playful approach to life, with puns, snappy wit, and a good memory, so you can follow the jokes over days.

I do not see much of this kind of humor when I look at my theocon friends. They generally seem more serious about things, and do not laugh easily.

I think a good approach is listening, in a effort to understand exactly what underlies the anger. I doubt that the real concern is religious, and once we figure it out, we have a chance of changing something for the better.

Boys, boys don’t fight you’re on the same team. we are allowed to disagree and i wish this animosity was directed where it should be, to the criminals who run this country and are ruining the world. If I knew how to embed a link in the comment (i’ll learn) I would have that sentence take you to the list of crimes that were posted by

deadlast at 12 on the “Now This is Interesting” thread Christy posted earlier today.

Anyway, please play nice. we need eachother more than ever.